Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Does It Exist in Pennsylvania?
I think we are all starting to see how this piece of federal legislation has caused a headache for state courts. While state court judges are not actually making immigration determinations, they are being asked to make all of the factual determinations underlying an immigration decision and, with a number of judges, that does not sit well.
November 28, 2023 at 11:23 AM
10 minute read
Like many of us, I try to review recent appellate decisions, particularly those originating in counties where I practice. When four Superior Court opinions in similar cases from two of the counties where I focus my practice appeared in little over nine months, I more than took notice. The topic is something I was familiar with as a former county Children, Youth & Families (CYF) solicitor; a topic that has been receiving more attention in the last few years. That topic is directly tied to the national immigration policy, so once again, family law is on the front lines. What I am talking about is the concept known as special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status. The SIJ statute is found at 8 USCA Section 1101(a)(27)(J) and provides that a qualifying juvenile may apply for lawful permanent residency and spared from possible deportation. See Yeboah v. U.S. Deptartment of Justice, 345 F.3rd 216, 221 (3rd Cir. 2003). Paraphrasing the SIJ statute, a qualifying juvenile is one who has been declared dependent by a state juvenile court, or which a state court has legally committed to or placed in the custody of an agency or individual. Reunification of the juvenile with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar basis as defined by state law. Furthermore, a state court needs to have determined that it would not be in the juvenile's best interest to be returned to the juvenile's or the parent's home country.
The process to obtain SIJ status is for the juvenile or someone acting on the juvenile's behalf to obtain from a state court an order finding the following:
- That the juvenile is unmarried and under 21 years of age;
- The juvenile is dependent on the court or placed in the care of an individual appointed by the court;
- The juvenile court has jurisdiction under state law to make determinations regarding the custody and care of juveniles;
- Reunification with one or both parents is not possible under state law due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment or a similar basis; and,
- It is not in the best interest of the juvenile to be returned to his or her parents' previous country. See 8 CFR §204.11(a),(c) and (d).
Assuming the petitioner can obtain such an order from the state court, the petitioner is then free to seek actual SIJ status from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDefendant in Protection From Abuse Case Has Standing to File for Contempt
6 minute read$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250